World Building > Writing Skill?

[Ankari]

I've been thinking about this topic for a few months. In light of stories like Harry Potter and the revitalization of the JRR Tolkien franchise, the answer isn't as clear as I would have thought. I've tried reading a few chapters of JRR Tolkien's books (The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring) and a took a stab at a few pages of Harry Potter. I couldn't get into either of them. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Which is the problem. I vaguely recall a thread or a linked article that asked if JRR Tolkien were alive today and submitted his books, would they find a publisher? I don't think so. Then what makes books like his, and like Harry Potter, so successful? Is it the potential? The complexity of the worlds? The vastness? Does this mean that a great world builder can find success, even if his writing skills are not up to par?

 

[Shockley]

I actually think Rowling did a pretty fantastic job of writing her story, even if she's not a technical master. The little things that we saw as superfluous the first time through developed deep meaning later on, and that says something about her skill. Tolkien - granted; but I think his story had more to do with tapping into a blackhole in the market than anything else (despite my love for LotR).

If you're creating an idea - which is really what LotR and Harry Potter are, considering their influence beyond writing and the fact that so many of their die hard fans have never read the books - then I would say development trumps writing.

But if you're writing a book, no, it's the writing.

 

[FatCat]

I'm completely on the side of writing skill. While world-building is fun, and interesting, it is not what comprises a story. A story should grab you from the get-go, while world-building is a nice side affect. While this is completely my own opinion, and I know a lot of people on this site love world-building, for good reason, in my mind it is a far second to actual narrative. When I think of a fantasy world, I wonder at what it adds to the theme, to the mood and setting and feel, although at times when I look through this site it seems as if people are so hung-up on how to implement real-world logistics and technology that this is lost. Again, I'm not disliking complex world-building, but at the same time I feel like too much importance is placed on it. A story is a self-sustained unit, integrating a lot of outside influences. You have one shot at it, and as much as any of us would love to publish a brief history on a fictional world, this option does not exist in commercial publishing. World-building, in my mind, should serve only to enhance the narrative, not override it, and keep to the same theme and mood as to what your characters are experiencing.

 

[ThinkerX]

What you are talking about is a gradual shift of writing styles over a period of decades.

Tolkiens style was the norm, or rather 'a norm' fifty to a hundred years ago. Authors used words to build a picture from the ground up, not just physical description but character and local history as well. A *lot* of the older works begin with a one or ten page description/history of an area and the character(s) before the action properly gets underway.

Whats changed, I think, is the nature of the audience. When Tolkien and the other old line greats wrote, photography was pretty simple and movies were in their infancy. Hence, to describe a sinister castle in the woods in the minds of their readers, they *had* to use lengthy descriptions. These days, 'visual media' is omnipresent; a few words is what it takes to bring forth a mental image - though, perhaps not the one the author had in mind.

As to the questions:

Which is the problem. I vaguely recall a thread or a linked article that asked if JRR Tolkien were alive today and submitted his books, would they find a publisher? I don't think so.

The problem here is that Tolkien pretty much founded the genre, or at least popularized it. There was at least one near clone of his series, published many decades later which did pretty well.

Then what makes books like his, and like Harry Potter, so successful?

Because they appeal to a segment of readers. The concepts resonate with them.

Is it the potential?

This too.

The complexity of the worlds? The vastness?

These things add DEPTH to a world, make it more phausible in the readerss mind. Its not just generic characters going through a generic landscape, but people with a place in a land steeped in history and mystery.

Does this mean that a great world builder can find success, even if his writing skills are not up to par?

AD&D, and the vast profusion of novels stemming from it say 'yes'. Same also goes for Warhammer, to a lesser extent.

A case for this could also be made with Erikson; his plotlines tend to get lost in the depth and scope of his worlds history.

As for myself, like I said before, I spent far too much time world building in my younger days (though I can put forth the excuse it was for a game background). I still use large elements of that world building, but there are also huge sections I basically ditched because they get in the way of the stories. (For example, my magic system is FAR simpler than it once was.)

 

[Sparkie]

I'm completely on the side of writing skill. While world-building is fun, and interesting, it is not what comprises a story. A story should grab you from the get-go, while world-building is a nice side affect. While this is completely my own opinion, and I know a lot of people on this site love world-building, for good reason, in my mind it is a far second to actual narrative. When I think of a fantasy world, I wonder at what it adds to the theme, to the mood and setting and feel, although at times when I look through this site it seems as if people are so hung-up on how to implement real-world logistics and technology that this is lost. Again, I'm not disliking complex world-building, but at the same time I feel like too much importance is placed on it. A story is a self-sustained unit, integrating a lot of outside influences. You have one shot at it, and as much as any of us would love to publish a brief history on a fictional world, this option does not exist in commercial publishing. World-building, in my mind, should serve only to enhance the narrative, not override it, and keep to the same theme and mood as to what your characters are experiencing.

What he said.

Also, to answer Ankari's final question, I think great world builders can indeed find sucess even if their storytelling skills aren't up to par, but not in the realm of literary fiction. Perhaps they can have an easier time making a contribution in a more collaborative medium, such as television, gaming, or cinema. In prose, the ability to write well is the most important skill. All other skills are secondary.

 

[Anders Ämting]

I've been thinking about this topic for a few months. In light of stories like Harry Potter and the revitalization of the JRR Tolkien franchise, the answer isn't as clear as I would have thought. I've tried reading a few chapters of JRR Tolkien's books (The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring) and a took a stab at a few pages of Harry Potter. I couldn't get into either of them. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Which is the problem. I vaguely recall a thread or a linked article that asked if JRR Tolkien were alive today and submitted his books, would they find a publisher? I don't think so. Then what makes books like his, and like Harry Potter, so successful? Is it the potential? The complexity of the worlds? The vastness? Does this mean that a great world builder can find success, even if his writing skills are not up to par?

...I'm having a hard time seeing your correlation between Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, honestly. You mean to say you had a hard time getting into them for similar reasons?

Because, I mean, you can fault Harry Potter for a lot of things but the premise is pretty easy to understand: British kid lives with an aweful family, then finds out he's a wizard. Boom! Magic school of adventure and mystery!

Even the magical world Rowling created, I wouldn't exactly describe as "vast and complex." More like she added new stuff with each book as she went along, and most of it is still implied. Rowling doesn't strike me as a major world-builder.

And I wouldn't really say that LotR and Harry Potter became popular for the same reason, either. I mean, there are similarities, but I also think there are some different mechanics at play.

 

[wordwalker]

Tolkiens style was the norm, or rather 'a norm' fifty to a hundred years ago. Authors used words to build a picture from the ground up, not just physical description but character and local history as well. A *lot* of the older works begin with a one or ten page description/history of an area and the character(s) before the action properly gets underway.

Absolutely. A lot (not all) of the "But Tolkien did it--" writing questions just lead to "For readers seventy years ago, period." He's still an amazing writer for a lot of us, but a little harder to appreciate these days.

I think there's a difference between saying people remember the world and that it's still the story that hooked them. It might even be as simple as how it's more comfortable to say "Part of me wants to be one of the Riders that were ready to ride with Theoden" than "When I read that moment, I just felt..."

What a good world --or just a complex one, more to buy into once you're hooked-- can do is multiply a story's success, but it can't make it. I don't know of any "great world ideas" that got far (in direct fiction, as opposed to gaming and such) without good stories, but plenty of tales that have transcended their background.

 

[Inglorious_Hero]

I've only read the Harry Potter books one time through, and that was back in high school. I think she is a particularly good writer, actually. The story is fairly simple to grasp. I do consider her a good world builder because, while it was pretty much just a school she created, the degree of detail she applied to the school is extraordinary. The spells, names, characters and their personalities; the classes, punishments, dark lords. I sometimes find it hard to believe that she came up with all she did. Not to forget the back-story she gave to just about everyone; especially the little elves.

If the world an author can build is enough to keep his readers devouring his books, it's a successful venture. Whether his/her writing is good or sub-par. If the writer can make you believe a story without reading like Charles Dickens, all the more power to them. I think the focus on world-building versus your writing skill is up to the individual writer. Either way, you must grab the reader by his shirt collar and pull him in.

 

[Amanita]

For me, world-building is an extremely important element of fantasy. I actually believe that a fantasy story set in an alternate world can't be really good, if the world-building is lacking. Stories where the writer simply throws some generic elements together and expects the reader to fill in the blank with the help of other works (and more skilled writers) make me want my money back if I've actually spent any on them.
Even something like forbidden romance or war doesn't work without the proper background. If we don't get a plausible explanation why these people aren't supposed to be in love or what they're fighting over, there's nothing interesting about it.
This might just be me, but I think that someone who's able to create plausible history and culture for his world won't be completely unable to deliever a good story either.
Technical writing skills can be improved if they're lacking, the ability to create a story is the thing that has to be there first.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, I think the posts above about Rowling are correct. She did a nice job of writing her books in a way that captivated readers. The ideas in them had been around, by and large, in other works. Tolkien evidences a more archaic style, to me. I think a work like that would still be published today, but probably not by the big publishing houses. With respect to Erikson, he's a good writer AND a good world-builder.

On the whole, I think writing ability far outweighs world-building.

 

[Ankari]

Tolkien evidences a more archaic style, to me.

I want to focus more on Tolkien. I really only read a few pages of Rowling. The thing that makes me scratch my head is the number of modern readers that list Tolkien's books as their favorite. So, if the writing style is archaic and not something that modern authors would attempt or modern editors would accept, what is it that makes his books so popular?

 

[Sparkie]

I want to focus more on Tolkien. I really only read a few pages of Rowling. The thing that makes me scratch my head is the number of modern readers that list Tolkien's books as their favorite. So, if the writing style is archaic and not something that modern authors would attempt or modern editors would accept, what is it that makes his books so popular?

The movie adaptations.

No, really! Granted, there are a lot of true fans of the books, and rightly so. But there is, I believe, a sizeable group of people who liked the Lord of the Rings movies enought to buy the books. Some of these people were disappointed at what they found in the books (for reasons already mentioned in this thread). And yet these same people would still consider themselves fans of Tolkien because they liked the story and world presented in the movies.

 

[Steerpike]

I want to focus more on Tolkien. I really only read a few pages of Rowling. The thing that makes me scratch my head is the number of modern readers that list Tolkien's books as their favorite. So, if the writing style is archaic and not something that modern authors would attempt or modern editors would accept, what is it that makes his books so popular?

The movies have something to do with it. But I do think your original point about the depth and grandeur of the created world illustrates an important factor. People do find that compelling, I think, even if they may not enjoy the writing style as much as they would something else. But in terms of world-building, I think you have to consider Tolkien somewhat of an outlier. Not many authors, if any, are going to be able to replicate that.

 

[Shockley]

Tolkein's writing style is archaic, but only so archaic. Tolkien was modeling his writing off of guys who became popular right at the turn of the century (Lord Dunsany, William Morris), so his writing style wasn't so old as to be impenetrable (as is the case with say, Vanity Fair).

A second point, and this is my subjective interpretation of events, is that Tolkien benefited immensely in the US from pulp magazines. The two driving forces of pulp at that point were Robert E. Howard and H. P. Lovecraft - who were also modeling their stories off of Lord Dunsany and William Morris, just on a smaller scale. So you had a massive audience that had become fanatic about pulp stories, and Tolkien comes onto the scene after Lovecraft and Howard are gone, providing something drawn from the same primal style (Dunsany's style, bluntly said) yet grander, longer and in many ways deeper. So he was filling a void that the mid-century American fantasists (L. Sprague de Camp, for example) were wallowing in.

On the UK front, it's important to remember that very specific trends and figures created modern American literature - namely, Ford Madox Ford, Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. In the UK, the popular books were dense, lush, etc. The UK's literary traditions developed earlier, and none of their giants had that innate love of tight, adverb-absent writings. I already referenced Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair - try reading that and then follow it up with Lord of the Rings; Vanity Fair is a very traditional piece of British literature, and it becomes obvious how readable and enjoyable Lord of the Rings is in contrast. Really, he was improving the standard level of writing in the UK, at least as far as non-critics were concerned.

In Germany, another place where Lord of the Rings was really popular, there is a long-standing literary tradition of telling older stories in a modern light. Any Tolkien fan really familiar with Germanic mythology has to struggle with the idea that Lord of the Rings is really a repackaged Nibelungenlied; this is problematic to Anglophonic audiences, but this was wonderful for German audiences who still appreciated the revisionist habits of Wagner, Goethe and Mann.

That's just my theory, though.

 

[Ankari]

@ Shockley: I read all of the Robert E Howard books concerning Conan. The style may have the same roots, but their evolution is quite separated. REH wrote in a style that modern readers can relate and appreciate. Tolkien isn't. At least in my opinion. What makes one author's work greater than the other? The difference is the world building and lore associated with Tolkien's stories.

 

[danr62]

It's been a long time since I've read Tolkien, but I can't recall ever feeling that his writing was inaccessible or something I couldn't relate to even as a young teen (or earlier, possibly). In fact, it was Narnia, followed by the Hobbit and the LOTR that got me into reading in the first place.

It might be a different story now that I'm much wider read. Who knows.

 

[ThinkerX]

For me LOTR was a class project in a 7th grade english class. We only made it through the 'Hobbit' and 'Fellowship of the Ring', but I was so completely entranced I went down to the bookstore and bought the whole set.

Tolkien put his characters in a world which had true depth. The landscape wasn't generic: it had history and so did the characters upon it. Bilbo gets dragged off on an adventure - and many decades later, the consequences of that adventure impact his nephew Frodo. The barrowdowns early on are not just piles of dirt, but a place where kings were buried and a nation ended. And so on.

A lot of later works are like 'cookie cutter' versions of Tolkien's world, and fail miserably because they lack Middle Earths depth.

Another thing is Tolkien was an expert in old line northern european mythology. He not only knew the myths, he understood the messages the myths were trying to convey - and drew heavily upon this for LOTR. Star Wars was the same way - Lucas understood key myths and incorporated them into his tale.

A great many of Tolkiens (and Lucas's) successors fail miserably at this; many do not seem to be aware of these mythic roots in the first place. Hence, their works...'ring hollow'.

 

[Ankari]

@ThinkerX

That post just reinforces the debate that world building > writing skills. Do you agree with that, then?

 

[ThinkerX]

That post just reinforces the debate that world building > writing skills. Do you agree with that, then?

Hmmm...

The quality of the world can and does affect the quality of the story. It is a key building block.

 

[FatCat]

An author can create an amazing world, but without the talent to describe it to the readers, then what's the point? I wonder at how many books never see the light of day because the prose was mundane and unreadable, while we all have read stories that have those cookie-cutter worlds. Either way, the creation of an amazing and in-depth world is nothing without the ability to convey it with the same quality that was put into building that world. That's how I see it, at least.